Danielle Leonard - Literate Environment Analysis

Danielle Leonard - Literate Environment Analysis

• 1.
  Danielle Leonard WaldenUniversity Mrs. Gina Pink EDUC 6706 The Beginning Reader, PreK-3 December 2014
• 2.
   Getting toKnow Literacy Learners, P-3  Selecting Texts  Literacy Lesson: Interactive Perspective  Literacy Lesson: Critical and Response Perspective  Questions  References
• 3.
   Afflerbach (2012)stated, “ Successful student readers are motivated, have a positive attitude, possess a good self-concept, and are capable of making accurate attributions for their performances (p.173).”  It is important as a teacher to know each students’ learning abilities along with their likes and dislikes.  Tompkins( 2010) stated, “ Engaged students have self-efficacy, the belief in their capability to succeed and reach their goals (Bandura, 1997) (p.8).”  I chose two research based practices to collect data on for three students. One assessment was cognitive which assess comprehension and the other one non-cognitive which assess their attitude toward reading.
• 4.
   The cognitiveassessment I chose to use was the Developmental Reading Assessment.  Tompkins (2010) stated,” Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) is available as two kits, one for grades k- 3 and the other for grades 4- 8, to assess students’ reading performance using leveled fiction and nonfiction books (Beaver, 2006) (p.81).”  I test all three students individually.  The data was used to identify the students instructional level for reading.  The non-cognitive assessment I chose to use was the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey.  McKenna & Kear (1990) stated, “Scores on the ERAS can be helpful in this process, but it is important to understand what they can and cannot do as well as how they relate to other sources of information (p.627-628)”  I notice that all the students’ scores for both sections were close in numbers. If they scored low on the recreational reading then they also scored low on the academic reading.
• 5.
   The LiteracyMatrix is a diagram that was discussed by Dr. Hartman and added on to by Dr. Almasi (Laureate Education). 1) Narrative ( Fiction stories) 2) Informational (Non-fiction stories) 3) Semiotic (Picture oriented) 4) Linguistic (text oriented) 5) Easy (Reading Difficulty) 6) Hard (Reading Difficulty)  The Literacy Matrix can be used to pick appropriate text for students.  Using all three dimensions of the Literacy Matrix, I chose three texts that appropriately fix my students which were informational, narrative, and online texts.  Tompkins (2010) stated,” Stories have been the principal genre for reading and writing instruction in the primary grades because it’s been assumed that constructing stories in the mind is a fundamental way of learning; however, many students prefer to read informational books, and they’re able to understand them as well as they do stories (Stead & Duke, 2005) (p.303).”
• 6.
   Effective teachersknows how to provide the students in their classroom with a variety of opportunities.  Data from the cognitive and non-cognitive assessments along with the literacy matrix helped me to chose appropriate text for my students.  The three text that were chosen were: 1) The Three Little Pigs and the Somewhat Bad Wolf by Mark Teague (Narrative & Semiotic) 2) I Have A Dream- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Painted by Kadir Nelson (Informational & Semiotic) 3) The Little Gingerbread Man Written by Carol Moore (Narrative & Linguistic)
• 7.
   Afflerbach, Pearson,& Paris (2008) stated, “ Helping children learn to read is a deeply rewarding experience for parents and teachers who take pride as their children acquire effective reading skills and reading strategies (p.364).”  Interactive Perspective is one of the three literacy perspectives that is used by effective teachers to provide the students with well rounded literature instructions.  Interactive Perspective focuses on teaching students to read and write correctly, with speed, and with understanding of text.  Stahl (2004) stated,” The unstated premise is that children who actively engage in particular cognitive strategies (activating prior knowledge, predicting, organizing, questioning, summarizing, and creating a mental image) are likely to understand and recall more of what they read (p.598).”
• 8.
   During thelesson on Gabriela, my students showed an understanding about Gabriela and her love for words, sounds, and stories. The text used was My Name is Gabriela by Monica Brown.  The lesson focused on word recognition and comprehension with the text being read through shared reading.  Tomkins (2010) stated,” Teachers use shared reading to read aloud books that are appropriate for children’s interest level but too difficult for them to read for themselves (Parkers, 2000) (p.132)”  The data from the lesson assessment provide insight on what I need to do differently for the next lesson and the students understanding of the text.
• 9.
   Molden, K.(2007) stated,” Critical literacy is defined as not only a teaching method but a way of thinking and a way of being that challenges texts and life, as we know it (McLaughlin, 2004) (p.50).”  Critical Perspective focus on having the students think critically and outside of what is directly stated in a text.  Response Perspective focus on how the students feel about situations that have happen in text and relate it to real life situations they may encounter.
• 10.
   The studentswere required to explore and think critically about the text selected. Text used was The Three Bears: An Alphabet Book by Grace Maccarone.  At the end of the lesson, they were required to develop an action plan for the Three Little Bears to keep others out of their house.  Molden (2007) stated, “ Using critical literacy helps pull power away from the author and makes it an equal relationship between the author and the reader by allowing us to see the texts from all angles, not just believing what is written down (p.51).”  Clyde, J. (2003) stated, “ If children are invited to examine the lives of others, trying them on for fit, looking around inside the story world, feeling the feelings of characters with life experiences different from their own (p.159).”
• 11.
   What insightsdid you gain about literacy and literacy instruction from viewing this presentation?  How might the information presented change your literacy practices and/or your literacy interactions with students?  In what ways can I support you in the literacy development of your students or children? How might you support me in my work with students or your children?  What questions do you have?
• 12.
   Afflerbach, P.(2012). Understanding and using reading assessment, K–12 (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.  Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364– 373.  Brown, M.(2005) My Name is Gabriela.  Clyde, J. A. (2003). Stepping inside the story world: The subtext strategy—a tool for connecting and comprehending. The Reading Teacher, 57(2), 150–160.  Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Analyzing and selecting text. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu  Maccarone, G. (2013) The Three Bears: An Alphabet Book. Scholastic, Inc.
• 13.
   McKenna, M.C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(9), 626–639.  Molden, K. (2007). Critical literacy, the right answer for the reading classroom: Strategies to move beyond comprehension for reading improvement. Reading Improvement, 44(1), 50–56.  Moore, C. (2014) The Little Gingerbread Man. Retrieved from  Nelson, K. (2012) I Have A Dream-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Teague, M. (2013) The Three Little Pigs and the Somewhat Bad Wolf  Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.  Stahl, K. A. D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 598–608.